Hypothetical car-bike interaction - Page 22 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-17-2004, 08:29 PM

>Anybody care to explain the odd term for such stores?

Local ordinances often forbid the carrying of alcoholic beverages on
a "to go" basis openly, they must be "packaged", e. g. carried in brown
paper bags, etc.

Hence a "package store" sells ABs for consumption off premise.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>cwhitman@texastwr.utaust in.edu__________

06-18-2004, 05:44 AM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:54:32 -0400, Rick Onanian <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>I've never heard that term, but I'll assume that it's short for
>"package store". For the life of me, I can't understand why liquor
>stores are called "package stores", but I guess it's a regional
>thing. I live in Rhode Island, where I _haven't_ seen any
>drive-through liquor stores (or "packies").
>
>Anybody care to explain the odd term for such stores?

My understanding of the term is that it applied at least originally to
stores that had off-premise liquor sales only, therefore everything
left in a package - no bottles or drinks sold for consumption on
premises.

Drive throughs IMO are a small subset of package stores. In North
Carolina I was at a real drivethrough - you never had to leave your
car and you drove through the middle of what looked like a converted
car wash. There was a place in Maryland that once sold driveup - you
pulled up to a window and never left your car. They stopped the
service for liability reasons according to the restaurant manager.

Interestingly, there seems to be some support for open containers in
vehicles, at least in areas that have a lot of heavy drinkers. IIRC, a
study in Wyoming (where some liquor stores don't bother to carry
fifths) indicated that no open containers meant that the heavy
drinkers simply consumed more before they began driving and drove
drunker than if they could have an open container. Seemed like
something that Seagrams would have paid for...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

06-18-2004, 05:44 AM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:54:32 -0400, Rick Onanian <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>I've never heard that term, but I'll assume that it's short for
>"package store". For the life of me, I can't understand why liquor
>stores are called "package stores", but I guess it's a regional
>thing. I live in Rhode Island, where I _haven't_ seen any
>drive-through liquor stores (or "packies").
>
>Anybody care to explain the odd term for such stores?

My understanding of the term is that it applied at least originally to
stores that had off-premise liquor sales only, therefore everything
left in a package - no bottles or drinks sold for consumption on
premises.

Drive throughs IMO are a small subset of package stores. In North
Carolina I was at a real drivethrough - you never had to leave your
car and you drove through the middle of what looked like a converted
car wash. There was a place in Maryland that once sold driveup - you
pulled up to a window and never left your car. They stopped the
service for liability reasons according to the restaurant manager.

Interestingly, there seems to be some support for open containers in
vehicles, at least in areas that have a lot of heavy drinkers. IIRC, a
study in Wyoming (where some liquor stores don't bother to carry
fifths) indicated that no open containers meant that the heavy
drinkers simply consumed more before they began driving and drove
drunker than if they could have an open container. Seemed like
something that Seagrams would have paid for...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

06-18-2004, 05:44 AM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:54:32 -0400, Rick Onanian <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>I've never heard that term, but I'll assume that it's short for
>"package store". For the life of me, I can't understand why liquor
>stores are called "package stores", but I guess it's a regional
>thing. I live in Rhode Island, where I _haven't_ seen any
>drive-through liquor stores (or "packies").
>
>Anybody care to explain the odd term for such stores?

My understanding of the term is that it applied at least originally to
stores that had off-premise liquor sales only, therefore everything
left in a package - no bottles or drinks sold for consumption on
premises.

Drive throughs IMO are a small subset of package stores. In North
Carolina I was at a real drivethrough - you never had to leave your
car and you drove through the middle of what looked like a converted
car wash. There was a place in Maryland that once sold driveup - you
pulled up to a window and never left your car. They stopped the
service for liability reasons according to the restaurant manager.

Interestingly, there seems to be some support for open containers in
vehicles, at least in areas that have a lot of heavy drinkers. IIRC, a
study in Wyoming (where some liquor stores don't bother to carry
fifths) indicated that no open containers meant that the heavy
drinkers simply consumed more before they began driving and drove
drunker than if they could have an open container. Seemed like
something that Seagrams would have paid for...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

06-18-2004, 05:44 AM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:54:32 -0400, Rick Onanian <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>I've never heard that term, but I'll assume that it's short for
>"package store". For the life of me, I can't understand why liquor
>stores are called "package stores", but I guess it's a regional
>thing. I live in Rhode Island, where I _haven't_ seen any
>drive-through liquor stores (or "packies").
>
>Anybody care to explain the odd term for such stores?

My understanding of the term is that it applied at least originally to
stores that had off-premise liquor sales only, therefore everything
left in a package - no bottles or drinks sold for consumption on
premises.

Drive throughs IMO are a small subset of package stores. In North
Carolina I was at a real drivethrough - you never had to leave your
car and you drove through the middle of what looked like a converted
car wash. There was a place in Maryland that once sold driveup - you
pulled up to a window and never left your car. They stopped the
service for liability reasons according to the restaurant manager.

Interestingly, there seems to be some support for open containers in
vehicles, at least in areas that have a lot of heavy drinkers. IIRC, a
study in Wyoming (where some liquor stores don't bother to carry
fifths) indicated that no open containers meant that the heavy
drinkers simply consumed more before they began driving and drove
drunker than if they could have an open container. Seemed like
something that Seagrams would have paid for...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

06-18-2004, 05:44 AM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:54:32 -0400, Rick Onanian <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>I've never heard that term, but I'll assume that it's short for
>"package store". For the life of me, I can't understand why liquor
>stores are called "package stores", but I guess it's a regional
>thing. I live in Rhode Island, where I _haven't_ seen any
>drive-through liquor stores (or "packies").
>
>Anybody care to explain the odd term for such stores?

My understanding of the term is that it applied at least originally to
stores that had off-premise liquor sales only, therefore everything
left in a package - no bottles or drinks sold for consumption on
premises.

Drive throughs IMO are a small subset of package stores. In North
Carolina I was at a real drivethrough - you never had to leave your
car and you drove through the middle of what looked like a converted
car wash. There was a place in Maryland that once sold driveup - you
pulled up to a window and never left your car. They stopped the
service for liability reasons according to the restaurant manager.

Interestingly, there seems to be some support for open containers in
vehicles, at least in areas that have a lot of heavy drinkers. IIRC, a
study in Wyoming (where some liquor stores don't bother to carry
fifths) indicated that no open containers meant that the heavy
drinkers simply consumed more before they began driving and drove
drunker than if they could have an open container. Seemed like
something that Seagrams would have paid for...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

06-18-2004, 11:05 AM

"Matt O'Toole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> DRS wrote:
>> "Matt O'Toole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>> DRS wrote:
>>>> "Matt O'Toole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> have a great deterrent, too -- they print your name in the paper
>>>>> when you're arrested for drunk driving, in a column called "Drunk
>>>>> and In Jail." I'm not kidding.
>>>>
>>>> In which state is that? Not in the one in which I live.
>>>
>>> NSW, circa 1980, when they first started doing it. My friend in
>>> Queensland says they still do.
>>
>> We don't do it in Victoria and my guess would be most states don't do
>> it either.
>
> It would never fly here (US), that's for sure -- innocent until
> proven guilty, and all that.

Given the lack of sub judice rules in US jurisprudence and the subsequent
'trial by public' shenanigans by all concerned that would get them
imprisoned here on contempt of court charges, I find the irony in your
contention almost unbearable. All marked Australian police vehicles carry
portable breathalyzers, there's none of this sobriety test rubbish. Those
who were named failed the breathalyzer. If they truly want to challenge it
in court they are entitled to have blood tests done by both a police doctor
and their own, but few bother since the breathalyzers are ordinarily very
accurate. So they are in fact no more "innocent until proven' guilty than
someone who was booked for speeding or somesuch - it doesn't apply unless
they challenge it in court.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

06-18-2004, 11:05 AM

"Matt O'Toole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> DRS wrote:
>> "Matt O'Toole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>> DRS wrote:
>>>> "Matt O'Toole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> have a great deterrent, too -- they print your name in the paper
>>>>> when you're arrested for drunk driving, in a column called "Drunk
>>>>> and In Jail." I'm not kidding.
>>>>
>>>> In which state is that? Not in the one in which I live.
>>>
>>> NSW, circa 1980, when they first started doing it. My friend in
>>> Queensland says they still do.
>>
>> We don't do it in Victoria and my guess would be most states don't do
>> it either.
>
> It would never fly here (US), that's for sure -- innocent until
> proven guilty, and all that.

Given the lack of sub judice rules in US jurisprudence and the subsequent
'trial by public' shenanigans by all concerned that would get them
imprisoned here on contempt of court charges, I find the irony in your
contention almost unbearable. All marked Australian police vehicles carry
portable breathalyzers, there's none of this sobriety test rubbish. Those
who were named failed the breathalyzer. If they truly want to challenge it
in court they are entitled to have blood tests done by both a police doctor
and their own, but few bother since the breathalyzers are ordinarily very
accurate. So they are in fact no more "innocent until proven' guilty than
someone who was booked for speeding or somesuch - it doesn't apply unless
they challenge it in court.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

06-18-2004, 11:05 AM

"Matt O'Toole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> DRS wrote:
>> "Matt O'Toole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>> DRS wrote:
>>>> "Matt O'Toole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> have a great deterrent, too -- they print your name in the paper
>>>>> when you're arrested for drunk driving, in a column called "Drunk
>>>>> and In Jail." I'm not kidding.
>>>>
>>>> In which state is that? Not in the one in which I live.
>>>
>>> NSW, circa 1980, when they first started doing it. My friend in
>>> Queensland says they still do.
>>
>> We don't do it in Victoria and my guess would be most states don't do
>> it either.
>
> It would never fly here (US), that's for sure -- innocent until
> proven guilty, and all that.

Given the lack of sub judice rules in US jurisprudence and the subsequent
'trial by public' shenanigans by all concerned that would get them
imprisoned here on contempt of court charges, I find the irony in your
contention almost unbearable. All marked Australian police vehicles carry
portable breathalyzers, there's none of this sobriety test rubbish. Those
who were named failed the breathalyzer. If they truly want to challenge it
in court they are entitled to have blood tests done by both a police doctor
and their own, but few bother since the breathalyzers are ordinarily very
accurate. So they are in fact no more "innocent until proven' guilty than
someone who was booked for speeding or somesuch - it doesn't apply unless
they challenge it in court.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

06-18-2004, 11:05 AM

"Matt O'Toole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> DRS wrote:
>> "Matt O'Toole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>> DRS wrote:
>>>> "Matt O'Toole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> have a great deterrent, too -- they print your name in the paper
>>>>> when you're arrested for drunk driving, in a column called "Drunk
>>>>> and In Jail." I'm not kidding.
>>>>
>>>> In which state is that? Not in the one in which I live.
>>>
>>> NSW, circa 1980, when they first started doing it. My friend in
>>> Queensland says they still do.
>>
>> We don't do it in Victoria and my guess would be most states don't do
>> it either.
>
> It would never fly here (US), that's for sure -- innocent until
> proven guilty, and all that.

Given the lack of sub judice rules in US jurisprudence and the subsequent
'trial by public' shenanigans by all concerned that would get them
imprisoned here on contempt of court charges, I find the irony in your
contention almost unbearable. All marked Australian police vehicles carry
portable breathalyzers, there's none of this sobriety test rubbish. Those
who were named failed the breathalyzer. If they truly want to challenge it
in court they are entitled to have blood tests done by both a police doctor
and their own, but few bother since the breathalyzers are ordinarily very
accurate. So they are in fact no more "innocent until proven' guilty than
someone who was booked for speeding or somesuch - it doesn't apply unless
they challenge it in court.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?